If you try talking to bank reps about investing for the long haul, creating a portfolio that will provide adequate income while not being too risky, the bank rep will immediately launch into a discussion of buying bonds to lowering risk. Huh?
Let's say you have $100,000 at retirement and you were to need $6000 annually to balance your books. What do you do. Back in March, I told a friend who had this exact problem to buy the top five Canadian banks in equal amounts. At the time do this would have provided a yield greater than 7%.
If one did this, one could remove $500 a month for 20 years while increasing the amount removed by the rate of inflation. I used 2% as the annual inflation rate and at the end of the 20 years I calculated that you would still have a balance of $90,189.79. It would take until the 15th year before the portfolio balance dropped below the original balance value of $100,000.
To assume that during those 15 years the five banks would never increase their dividends is crazy. Most likely the dividends would slowly climb and your withdrawal would never reach the point of decreasing the balance. At the end of 20 years you would still have your complete balance, quite likely more.
Two concerns must be addressed:
Is it possible the dividend income will be cut? Possible? Yes, but unlikely. There is some risk but very little. If there is a dividend cut, chances are only one bank will be involved. Remember, the Bank of Montreal has gone almost 200 years without cutting its dividend. The top five Canadian banks prefer to issue more equity rather than reducing the dividend yield.
Is it likely the value of the bank stock will fall? Yes. That is probably not so much a risk as a given. But who cares? It is the dividend income that you need. The value of the stock itself is not the concern. And with a 20 year time frame, the chance is very, very slim that the bank stock will be worth less than when purchased.
Now, what happens when you buy bonds paying .95%? In your 15th year, the money runs out.
Oh, the interest paid by bonds may go up but no one knows when this will happen nor by how much the rate will climb.
Talk about risk. It seems to me the more bonds you buy, the more risk you assume. The world is a risky place. No investment is totally risk free but as you can see buying stocks may be as good a bet as one can make. If I'm wrong, I will let the bank reps have the last word. I doubt I'll hear from any.
Let me add, I have all my retirement funds in equities. I have done quite nicely over the past 11 years. If I'd have stayed with bonds, I would not be doing as well. Yet, the bank reps insist that I should own some bonds. Why?
* duffer: an untrained, inexperienced but opinionated person, especially an elderly one. This blog contains the thoughts of a retired photojournalist, a senior and a duffer when it comes to finance. Circumstances forced the author to manage his retirement finances. He has done well but he is NOT a a financial adviser. The opinions expressed are his and should not be construed as legal, tax or financial advice. Those seeking professional advice should see a professional adviser.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment